Talk:JD Vance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Website is a parked domain

The URL listed under website in the infobox leads to a parked domain page. It probably should not be listed here, at least until it is filled with a proper website.--UKcrow93 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I just came back here and saw that there was still no content on the parked domain listed as website in the infobox, so I deleted it. Please feel free to include it again as soon as there is actual content provided under the URL. --UKcrow93 (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Heading text

I would like to know if you said the following? “. If I had to bite my tongue and vote for Hilary Clinton I would “ I take it that your willing to bow down to the communist Regime and go along with their agendas and help destroy our beloved country and turn it over to the communist party of China? I would greatly appreciate a trust and sincere answer not a political runaround response. Thank you Mark Harper Columbus Ohio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.79.175 (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Mark Harper: provides political rant; Also Mark Harper: asks others not to provide political rant. You're adorable.EinBergsteiger (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

J.D. Vance name is spelled wrong on the title of this page

J.D. Vance name is spelled wrong in the title of the page and has a space between the two first initials and is probably spelled wrong in other sections of this page as well Ptero60 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy seems to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Initials (MOS:INITIALS); specifically,

An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless:

• the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and
• an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person.

The second bullet appears to be confirmed by the sources used in the article. As for the first bullet, does Vance demonstrably and consistently prefer "J.D." over "J. D."?

-- Pemilligan (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the cover of the book he authored and there doesn't seem to be a space in between the two initials and every website I've seen that spells his name with proper punctuation spells it as J.D. Vance Ptero60 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

For the first example, we don't know who decided how the book cover should be done--author, editor, publisher, etc. For the second example, websites by other people don't tell us what Vance's position is. The question is, what does Vance demonstrably and consistently prefer? -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"The question is, what does Vance demonstrably and consistently prefer?" see now thats where it gets complicated because Vance doesn't use any periods or spaces at all. See [1] "JD will bring Ohio values to Washington" "JD grew up in Middletown, Ohio" "That outsider is JD Vance." etcHorse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

His campaign website has him as JD Vance, as in "JD Vance for Senate" and "Meet JD" with no periods at all. MOS:INITIALS sets a very high bar, and I think that policy is due for a review, as I believe we should call people by the names and pronouns they want to be called, as a fundamental human right. But the policy says otherwise. BBQboffin (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"He is best known for his memoir Hillbilly Elegy" ??

Is this accurate? At this point, isn't he more well known for running for Senate?

"senate" 5,330,000 results for "jd vance 'senate'"

"hillbilly+elegy" 598,000 results for "jd vance 'hillbilly elegy'"

TortillaDePapas (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Another editor (thank you!) changed the lede to: "He came to prominence with his 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy." so I think this has been resolved. ~~~ BBQboffin (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Reasons for tags

1. The article needs a rewrite, better references, a smoother flow(the Career section needs to have the HillBilly Elegy section split/lessened, the political opinions section is quite awful as there is mixture of opinion and event (Does his opponent{s} have one??) and it is very obvious that there is no consensus. (As an aside, I would like to have more on Road to Damascus moment). The articleHillbilly Elegy is more balanced, so much so that the mentions of the Elegy here seem stark as being intended to discredit. i gather this is also happening on his opponent from the comments above, have added an NPOV tag should be added there as well.
2. This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (October 2022)
   • LOTS OF References don't always match statements
   • "In recent decades, rates of domestic violence have decreased" Really...Really ...ok that made me question the source reliability. Have no idea Ohio sources, but Is it a definition thing?
3. This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (October 2022)
   • His prominence is linked to the rise of Elegy matches Google Trends. but you need a cite
   • "Born in Middletown, Ohio, Vance studied political science and philosophy at Ohio State University before earning a degree from Yale Law School. His memoir, which describes his upbringing in Middletown and his family's Appalachian values, became a New York Times bestseller and attracted significant press attention during the 2016 United States presidential election. Vance launched his first political campaign for Ohio's Senate seat in 2021 and won the Republican nomination with 32% of the vote. He will face Democrat Tim Ryan in the general election." This whole paragraph does not have references that match any of these facts
   • Article "Vance opposes abortion and said a leaked U.S. Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade "would be an amazing victory" if true." original tweet "Hope the news of the leaked opinion is true. Would be an amazing victory for the pro life movement and, most importantly, the innocents we fight for." Just let the facts show that he oppose abortion, so remove Vance Opposes Abortion, or get references.
   • "Vance reiterated Trump's claims of election fraud, falsely stating that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election because of widespread voter fraud." is not the same as “There were certainly people voting illegally on a large-scale basis,” Vance, an author and venture capitalist, said during a Friday interview. Asked about massive fraud in Ohio, where Trump won by 8 percent, Vance said: “I think it’s probably true that Trump won by a larger margin in Ohio, but I think as things go, we had as (U.S. Rep.) Jim Jordan said, our elections were pretty gold standard. I don’t think things were perfect in Ohio, but I think it was #better here than in 90 percent of the states.” because he doesn't say that Trump lost because of it.
   • This is a personal preference, but I never like the use of only foreign sources for politics about another country in a paragraph. so back up "The Week". The Guardian, and the Spectator world (even global editions) with US articles
   • With Biden flooding Ohio with illegal drugs, the article states "He suggested that Biden was intentionally allowing drugs such as fentanyl" Is fentanyl illegal in Ohio? And did flooding mean Biden was selling, distributing, not stopping it
4. The neutrality of this article is disputed. (October 2022)
   • I gather hillbilly is a slur in the US, so use the full name of the Hillbilly Elegy at least once.
   • "Vance has been called a right-wing populist and national conservative candidate, backed by venture capitalist Peter Thiel and endorsed by Tucker Carlson." provide some other options, how has he described himself, how others who don't loathe him
   • "Economist William Easterly, a West Virginia native, criticized the book, calling it a "Sloppy analysis of collections of people—coastal elites, flyover America, Muslims, immigrants, people without college degrees, you name it—has become routine. And it's killing our politics."" His opinion (he has no reference mentioned in the Elegy) a is overweighted compared to NYT and Washington Post, and The West Virginian native is overemphasised (see article where he makes a joke about it as he left as a toddler). He is also saying that he disagrees with the whole genre, political belief system, ...., Have added a comment on Elegy article. (Aside, also have added his books to my reading list)>
5. Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (October 2022)
   • Enotes ?? Really Enotes?
   • Multiple Wikipedia:SWYRT
6. This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information.
   • "Vance is influenced by fellow Senate candidate Blake Masters, conservative writer Rod Dreher, and by neoreactionary blogger Curtis Yarvin." THe article does not state influenced by, but friends with. It doesn't describes Curtis Yarvin as neoreactionary, it describes "Laurenson had been a well-known blogger and activist in the BDSM scene back when Yarvin was the central early figure in a world of “neo-reactionary” writers, publishing his poetry and political theory on the Blogger site under the name Mencius Moldbug." (Aside, American politics is far more interesting than I thought)
   • The Guardian describes Viktor Orban as a far-right Hungarian president, but that is not the consensus on Viktor Orban (and i couldn't find any other matches, so should not be used; I couldn't find any other - it's damning Vance by association.

References

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@hUser:Muboshgu Reasons why.

• Hi Wakelamp. I previously made the exact same mistake (adding lots of tags); turns out that's considered Wikipedia:Tag bombing (that page cites "disruptive editing", but often it's also done in good faith). Lots of tags at the beginning of articles make the page unaesthetic, fill up the screen unnecessarily, and are unusually just not necessary. No article is perfect, but unless there's major issues, there's no need for tags.

Middle name

Is it David or Donald? The article mentions that he changed his last name, but theres no explanation for the differing middle names. --jonas (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Scrubbing of Vance's social conservatism in lead

Davefelmer recently removed all mention of Vance's socially conservative policies in the lead, stating it violated the principles of WP: NPOV and WP: Activism. This seems strange to me, as I'm not sure how it's activism or a violation of NPOV to recount positions that he publicly expouses, is well known for, or has on his campaign site.

Vance is widely known for expousing socially conservative views and his previous support of the Never Trump movement. It's perplexing to say this is not notable.

In the edit, he stated:

Policy positions are NOT typically described in a politician's body because of exactly this kind of WP:ACTVIST cherrypicking. this kind of WP:ACTVIST cherrypicking. And these are yet again WP:UNDUE per their prominence in the article body. Abortion doesn't even cover two full lines of the entire article, same sex marriage doesn't even touch half a line! That's not even remotely close to prominent enough. And then you again put sources in the lead that aren't even in the body. This is simply not WP:NPOV.

Tagging the editors involved in this outside of myself: @Drevolt:, @Davefelmer:, and @Ser!:. I don't want this to become an edit dispute. KlayCax (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources (such as this) have stated that abortion is the (or one of the top) leading issues in the 2022 United States Senate election in Ohio race. Vance is widely known for his socially conservative views. It obviously merits inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree with you here, these are pretty core positions in his campaign. Drevolt (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Your insertion includes: "His positions include opposition to same-sex marriage[6] and support of increased restrictions on abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.[7]" The first cite doesn't directly support that he opposes same-sex marriage, it only says that he disliked a certain bill related to it (elsewhere I read that he said "I don’t think that law strikes a very good balance." etc.). The second cite about abortion looks more okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The literal definition of WP:LEAD is "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a SUMMARY OF ITS MOST IMPORTANT CONTENTS. What you KlayCax (talk) say when you say "Vance is widely known for expousing socially conservative views and his previous support of the Never Trump movement" means nothing as it's not prominently discussed in the article. His "socially conservative" views cover less than 3 lines in the entire piece, and although he does say he's a "Never Trump guy" at some point to a college buddy, that's hardly being part of a "movement" in the same way as say The Lincoln Project are.

And re abortion, again, you bringing in something like this https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/1122694807/abortion-is-top-of-mind-in-ohios-closely-watched-senate-race means absolutely nothing. It's the definition of WP:OR. It's researching a wider topic in other sources beyond what's described in the article and how it directly relates to the subject's life and position on it. And re gay marriage, as the other user notes, his opposition to a bill doesn't mean he opposes same sex marriage in general and it's again WP:UNDUE to say that.

Finally, if you really want to reference that he was against Trump and a Never Trump guy, then you can say it as the section is a notable chunk of the article body. But it needs to be consistent and WP:DUE with what is said, which is that he was a critic of Trump during the 2016 election, referred to himself as a never Trump guy, backtracked when he announced his candidacy and that he was endorsed by Trump earlier this year. Something like this:

"Vance was a critic of Donald Trump during the 2016 election, describing himself as a "Never Trump guy". However, he changed his rhetoric after announcing his Senate candidacy, and apologized for his past critiques. He was endorsed by Trump in April 2022."

THAT reflects the most important parts of the section. At the moment, you just want to include that he was part of a never Trump 'movement' when he just said that once and then emphasize a hypocritical look by going right into him changing his views ahead of his senate race. It ignores that he apologized for his prior views, it ignores that Trump himself endorsed him which is huge here!

So we can cover it like that. But the socially conservative stuff is not prominent enough in the article body to have WP:DUE weight in the lead. Really, the status quo of the old version of the article should remain published while we resolve it here, but if we can discuss and reach a compromise on the above, I'll be happy to insert that in instead. Davefelmer (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If there are no further discussion points, I'll make the change in 24 hours. Davefelmer (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a SUMMARY OF ITS MOST IMPORTANT CONTENTS Which being part of the Never Trump movement, opposition to abortion, and support for repealing Obergefell v. Hodges all fit into. Multiple RS have stated that these things are core to his campaign.

At the moment, you just want to include that he was part of a never Trump 'movement' when he just said that once and then emphasize a hypocritical look by going right into him changing his views ahead of his senate race. Vance didn't say that just once. He repeatedly criticized his policies and personality throughout much of his tenure. (2017-2021) There's also been extensive questions about how sincere his endorsement of Vance truly is. Regardless, endorsements aren't usually placed in the lead.

And re gay marriage, as the other user notes, his opposition to a bill doesn't mean he opposes same sex marriage in general Vance has repeatedly stated that he is opposed same-sex marriage and Obergefell v. Hodges, mentioning it in the campaign. Like abortion, multiple news sources have labeled it an important part of his platform.

It's the definition of WP:OR. If multiple reliable sources state that it's one of important parts of his platform: it's not a violation of the policy.

But the socially conservative stuff is not prominent enough in the article body to have WP:DUE weight in the lead Then that's an argument for expanding the body. Not deleting clearly notable parts of his biography. To say that he's not primarily running on a social conservative platform is ridiculous and goes against a multitude of sources.

None of this violates WP: NPOV or WP: Due. KlayCax (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Re gay marriage: you point to The Columbus Dispatch. It's paywalled. What exactly does it say that supports your statement? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You can access archived copies at the Wayback Machine and Archive.today. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I read I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I don't think the gay marriage issue is alive right now," Vance said. "I'm not one of these guys who's looking to try to take people's families and rip them apart." If KlayCax had been using that source to say Mr Vance as a political position would not oppose same-sex marriage, I'd have said okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I responded quick and realized that I sent the wrong article. It was referencing a statement from the same newspaper that stated that Vance is known for his socially conservative views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgender issues, representing a brand of conservative nationalism shared with candidates... but I got the links mixed up. But, honestly, thinking more about it: that claim is debatable at best. His stance on abortion and previous opposition to Trump has received significantly more attention in reliable sources. And I (myself) don't think it's that important to include.

I wouldn't object if the reference to opposing same-sex marriage is removed from the lead, @Peter Gulutzan:.KlayCax (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I intend to remove "opposition to same-sex marriage[6] and" from the last sentence of the lead, and remove "Vance opposes same-sex marriage." from a later section. But I'll wait a day in case there are objections from other thread participants. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Vance has explicitly stated that he's against same-sex marriage, though. His quote just seems to mean: "it wouldn't be a legislative priority" if he's elected.

I still support removing opposition to same-sex marriage from the lead. KlayCax (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Re the lead: Marquardtika got in front of me and removed the whole sentence. Re the later section: I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

KlayCax you kind of keep missing what Davefelmer was trying to say although I don't agree with every one of Davefelmer's points, in your last paragraph of your response to that user you said that "Then that's an argument for expanding the body. Not deleting clearly notable parts of his biography." except that was not what Davefelmer was doing, Davefelmer was disputing putting the political positions in the lead of the page because it is unusual to do that which I would agree with.

You yourself made a similar justification when you said "Regardless, endorsements aren't usually placed in the lead." when you declined to put the trump endorsement in the lead. I am sure the same applies to political positions and especially past ones which vance seems to not have held even a year before he announced his candidacy which would be the "never trump" position. You keep making claims without citing them like when you said Vance was criticizing trump from 2017-2021 and also that still doesn't mean he was "never trump" for this long.

The citations you do give are either paywalled or don't really support your claim like when you cited here "There's also been extensive questions about how sincere his endorsement of Vance truly is." which is just trump saying ridiculous things but says he still fully supports vance. Also putting abortion in the lead doesn't make sense because abortion is a contentious issue in the whole country and we don't put abortion positions in the lead for every candidate's page.

I disagree with putting political positions in the lead to begin with and it is unusual to add it there and especially previous political positions and I noticed you added political positions in the lead for tim ryan's page as well here [1] and here [2] where you are wording info to make tim ryan look really good which does seem a little biased which is probably what Davefelmer was referring to when wp:activism was mentioned. I do think keeping the lead as before is probably a better idea and seems to be the norm. Traftra8 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Woah, I wrote out a response to KlayCax's last set of points but it doesn't appear to have been saved or uploaded. Bizarre. In essence though, I think Traftra8 covers a lot of them very well, and to an extent Peter Gulutzan does too. There's simply far too much WP:OR and taking liberties with sources in your explanations. You say being part of the Never Trump movement and support for repealing Obergefell v. Hodges is stated in numerous reliable sources to be core to his campaign, but you can't cite those sources and none are in the article. On top of that, he said he was "Never Trump" to a college friend, while not being part of any actual 'movement' to stop his election. He didn't fundraise against Trump, he didn't campaign against him, he didn't pay for anti-Trump ads. By that logic everyone against Biden now is part of an "anti-Biden movement". The project standard does not normally associate people with 'movements' as such, as seen for example by Kamala Harris not being cited as part of the Black Lives Matter movement despite posting links to bail money funds for protestors during the summer of 2020 on her official social media channels, which is far more than Vance ever did in regards to a movement.

You say Vance repeatedly criticized Trump throughout his Presidency and that Trump's endorsement of Vance wasn't genuine, but provided no sources to back up either assertion and none are in the article. Trump saying some nonsense to puff up his ego on the side isn't the same thing as him saying he didn't want to endorse him or didn't mean it. You then say "multiple news sources have labeled" abortion restrictions and opposition to gay marriage as an "important part of his platform", but as ever cannot cite any and none are in the article expressly stating so.

You say If multiple reliable sources state that it's one of important parts of his platform: it's not a violation of the policy, but that's the thing, it IS a violation of the policy if you can't cite those sources, they aren't directly to do with the topic at hand (J.D. Vance) AND they're not in the article.

Finally, what really gets me is this endorsements aren't usually placed in the lead. As Traftra8 notes, this is strange to point to considering all the things not normally placed in the lead that you've insisted for. Political positions are not normally placed in the lead, see Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff, Chuck Schumer, Maggie Hassan and Catherine Cortez Masto as just some examples. Claimed association with broader 'movements' are not normally placed in the lead. Citing information not prominently featured in the article body is not placed in the lead. Yet you seem to be fine with all of those, and it's quite convenient that you want to use one section of the body to cite Vance as part of a Never Trump 'movement' before making it look hypocritical by saying he changed positions when he ran for the Senate, while ignoring that Vance apologized for his past criticisms AND that Trump personally endorsed him from the very same section. At the end of the day, you don't get to pick and choose what to include in the lead to match your views. That's not what the project is about. Davefelmer (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet you seem to be fine with all of those, and it's quite convenient that you want to use one section of the body to cite Vance as part of a Never Trump 'movement' before making it look hypocritical by saying he changed positions when he ran for the Senate, while ignoring that Vance apologized for his past criticisms AND that Trump personally endorsed him from the very same section. If there's notable pieces of legislation/positions that they have. Yes, it should be added. See Marjorie Taylor Greene (which is a "good article"). It's remarkably typical to have political positions in the lead. I'm not sure why Vance is an exception. And I have nothing to do with the current articles on Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff, Chuck Schumer, Maggie Hassan, or any of the rest.

before making it look hypocritical by saying he changed positions when he ran for the Senate I fail to see how that makes him look hypocritical.

You then say "multiple news sources have labeled" abortion restrictions and opposition to gay marriage as an "important part of his platform", but as ever cannot cite any and none are in the article expressly stating so. Lots of news organizations and commentators have stated it is.

I disagree with putting political positions in the lead Then half of the pages on this site surrounding politicians need rewritten.

At the end of the day, you don't get to pick and choose what to include in the lead to match your views. That's an uncalled for accusation. I've criticized many of the pages currently on this site — including those that relate to the United States (see here) — for left-wing bias that I've seen. Wikipedia articles aren't to make one candidate look "good" or "bad".

You then say "multiple news sources have labeled" abortion restrictions and opposition to gay marriage as an "important part of his platform", but as ever cannot cite any and none are in the article expressly stating so. Here. This isn't to include abortion: which has already been repeatedly addressed. KlayCax (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage under political positions

Due to discussion above including my post on "15:15, 26 September 2022" I removed "Vance opposes same-sex marriage" from the body. Now I see KlayCax on September 27 inserted "Vance has voiced opposition to same-sex marriage", this time citing Cincinnati Enquirer, coincidentally the same as in the reply above re "multiple news sources". Once again KlayCax refers to a paywalled site but an excerpt is available on "Ohio Democrats" web page. I continue to oppose this as it's a conclusion that Mr Vance's actual words don't seem to support. Does KlayCax's edit have consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not. Marquardtika (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328: On 19:16, 17 October 2022 you re-inserted this material after Davefelmer removed it. Were you aware of this discussion thread? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of this discussion. I reverted once based on the edit summary that said, "relevant source paywalled". That is not a valid reason to remove a reference, since policies and guidelines permit paywalled sources, and most of the best US newspapers from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times and many others are paywalled. Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Now that you're aware of the discussion, you know the objection is not about paywall. Will you be neutral if/when another removal occurs with an edit summary mentioning WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE instead? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that political positions should be presented in the body of the article instead of the lead. But I also want the article to accurately summarize his stance on same sex marriage. You say the objection is not about the paywall but I see the paywall being mentioned repeatedly above and in the edit summary of what I reverted. If the text being challenged accurately summarizes the source, then I think it should remain. If it misrepresents the source, then it should be rewritten or removed. Is the source misrepresented in your view? Most of the recent coverage deals with his opposition to a federal bill codifying same sex marriage as he said in the recent debate. This advocacy source says he said "Marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman," which indicates he opposes both divorce and same sex marriage in general. I am not proposing to use that particular source, but I want the content to accurately summarize the full range of reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Re "paywall being mentioned repeatedly": yes but not with respect to the objection because as I said we can access an excerpt. Re "Is the source misrepresented": no and that was never the objection, but the source Haley BeMiller may be misrepresenting her source which she didn't specify with reference to something Mr Vance actually said. Re "Most of the recent coverage deals with his opposition to a federal bill codifying same sex marriage as he said in the recent debate." yes that is why the Wikipedia article already says that and there is no objection about it. Re your quote "Marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman": the Wikipedia article already quotes almost the same words from another occasion but he went on, as the Wikipedia article says: "I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I don't think the gay marriage issue is alive right now. I'm not one of these guys who's looking to try to take people's families and rip them apart." So things that you bring up are already in the article and nobody's objecting to them, the only objection is to KlayCax's addition of Haley BeMiller's conclusion. Are you aware that we're discussing something under Political positions not "Personal predilections"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If it wasn't mentioned with respect to the objection how do you explain this[2]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I responded to the complaint about paywall being "mentioned repeatedly above", none of the paywall mentions above were objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I added a topic subheading = Same-sex marriage under political positions. KlayCax + Cullen328 support the addition. Davefelmer and Peter Gulutzan oppose. Marquardtika judged there is no consensus though that was before Cullen328 re-inserted. I believe there is still no consensus and intend to revert in a day or two mentioning WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to yourself in the third person? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I did, I hoped that by listing names only without mixing in pronouns I would make it easier for anyone who wasn't reading carefully. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverted as promised. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Biden section

Recommend omitting "falsely" from the phrase about his claim that President Joe Biden was flooding Ohio with illegal drugs. The first references was an opinion about what he said, and the second made assertions that the information was not true and gave it '4 Pinocchios' but did not conclusively disprove Vance's opinion. Later reports show increases to fentanyl seizures, which counters the Post's article, weakening it's rationale. THEREFORE, the NPOV response would be to remove the value judgement and let the claim lay by itself, without commentary. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/fentanyl-seizures-border-continue-spike-making-san-diego-national-epicenter-fentanyl DeknMike (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Why not rename the section something like "Drugs" and include the existing quote along with other well-sourced text about the subject's views (without the hyperbole) on marijuana, opioids, and federal policy? Deleting one word doesn't do much here; the NPOV response is a bold re-write. BBQboffin (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Done, and added material with an opposing view from a semi-neutral source. DeknMike (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Should Vance's opposition to abortion and previous criticism of Trump be included in the lead?

Should J.D. Vance's opposition to abortion and previous criticism of Trump be included in the lead of the article?

Version #1:

Vance was a critic of Donald Trump during the 2016 election, becoming a member of the Never Trump movement, but changed his rhetoric after announcing his candidacy. Considered a national conservative and right-wing populist, he supports increased restrictions on abortion, including in cases that involve rape and incest.

Version #2:

Statement above not included.

Arguments can be found above. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't you add the version 2?

It's not justified being in the lede. THe lede's references are substandard; Enotes ???, a NYT paragraph long summary referring to a full NYT review as a reference??. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Version #2 means not including the paragraph of version #1 in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Version 1 I've read the dispute above and I'm still not sure what the argument for not including it is. This information is all well-sourced. I could maybe see not picking out that specific policy position unless he's really specifically known for it but the rest is clearly WP:DUE. Loki (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• No, don't put Version 1 in the lede. If a candidate has a signature issue, like Yang's UBI or Forbes' flat tax, then that makes sense to promote that to the lede, but just having a position on abortion (nearly everyone has one) doesn't make that lede-worthy. BBQboffin (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• No, at least not this version. I'm seeing no compelling reason why his abortion position needs to be described in such detail in the lead. None of his other positions are. Why is this one special? Broad descriptions of his political stances could be included in the lead someway, but this proposal is just not great. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Not justified being in the lead, and why the hell has this RFC even been started? You sought to include effectively this exact same information in the body already, were reverted, took it to talk, had 3 editors oppose and only one other support (so didn't get consensus), and now you've started an RFC hoping to void that discussion and get brand new editors to come in and hopefully give you a consensus here. But that's not how it works. Considering you also started a similar RFC on Herschel Walker's page that was quickly shut down where you similarly tried to cram in negatively phrased or viewed policy positions into the lead, I don't see how we can view this in good faith. Seems like the left wing activism attempt of the cycle, where someone always has a pop trying to edit the page of every Republican politician running in a close election or swing state by conveniently cherrypicking out their most conservative or least mainstream policy positions and packing them into the lead, while the opposing Democrat's page either remains untouched or gets the opposite treatment where their most mainstream views and policy positions are plucked into the lead. Has failed before and will fail again this time. Davefelmer (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Davefelmer I agree. I put up pov tags on both Vance and the opponent Ryan, and left detailed notes (as this was my first Rfc - and I was just here to check on my Political Russian Jokes rfc, so I thought I would pay if forward)

I checked through all the reverts, most were ok, but the changes included some very unreliable references (enotes!!), references not matching match the content (especially if the reference were negative), weasel, an amazing amount about a refugee and a book, ...and lots of blp type issues.

I am not American, but isn't there some of abbreviations for different opinions about abortion?

And various editors and rfcers seemed connected or at least edit on similar subject I

think.

Any feedback on what, and how much I wrote on the talk pages would be appreciated as I was going to put myself down to do 2 per month.( Note, I don't use the WP codes as I am stillrubbish at them, but I know the guidelines reasonably well)

Just out of interest, I can't see how heavily biased articles help in an election - in Australia voters just switch off, and it makes WP look dumb - I just tend to not edit them because I can improve something else easier). Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• No this version splits the argument and will have us stuck in no-consensus forever: 1. abortion inclusion 2. Never-Trump inclusion and 3. either of them as part of the lead. We have plenty of information to go off of here, and it seems to me that per WP:BLP, we should remove the controversial elements from the lead. Tepkunset (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  What about if we used Vance and Ryan's opinions based on their debate . I am not American, so i asked what the neutral wording was

  Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Neutral wording for Pro-life and Pro-choice Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• No for the lead. It would seem WP:UNDUE there. desmay (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• Version 1 (uninvolved user coming from the Politics RfC page.) This is one of the major traits of the candidate that gets mentioned in all news articles. The lead must mention the major traits. hence I support its addition. This has become even more relevant after the Dobbs verdict. Venkat TL (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• No for the lead. The issue is important to the party faithful, but a majority say it's not a key issue. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/313316/one-four-americans-consider-abortion-key-voting-issue.aspx) It's discussed in the body.DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• No for the lead. Though policies don't say this outright (they just state that the lead should reflect the body), it's generally good practice for the lead to focus on what the subject is notable for. Hard to see how version 1 meets that criteria. Also, the lead's length is currently proportional to the article length; there's no need to cram more things in. DFlhb (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"He chose Augustine of Hippo for his confirmation name."

Can't fix this myself, so consider this someplace between an edit-semi-protected request and a pointing out the following issues. First, it's uncited. Second, the phrasing is clumsy and silly. I'm pretty sure his local bish didn't ceremoniously tell him, "Augustine of Hippo, be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit." I suggest either "Choose Augustine as..." or possibly better, "Choose Augustine of Hippo as his patron saint", since this seems to be directly sourceable. (The American Conservative interview.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Career section - William Easterly comment

While I find Easterly's criticism of the book relevant, is it relevant to state that he is a West Virginia native? Vance represents Ohio in the Senate, where his book is also set. While Ohio and West Virginia may share cultural similarities, it seems like a bad precedent to give background for everyone who has a comment or give credibility based on being from West Virginia. We don't write, for example, "Joe Biden, a Pennsylvania native." IAmAaron2 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023 for JD Vance Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I'd like to suggest an edit to JD Vance's Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Vance.

Under "personal details" on the right-hand side panel, I would like to add in his campaign website: https://jdvance.com/ in addition to his Senate website which is currently linked. I believe that it would be beneficial knowledge to include in the panel information. Please let me know if I'm able to make this edit to include the link, which already currently appears at the bottom in external sources.

Best, Kelley Kelleybab (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia isn’t an Avenue for politicians to promote their campaigns. I think this request was in good faith, but I will not accept it. Any other thoughts? Illusion Flame (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing that on some Senators' pages (Bob Casey Jr. and Lindsay Graham for example) both the Senate website and Campaign website are both listed in the infobox, but for other Senators (even newly elected ones like John Fetterman), only the Senate website appears. Per WP:READER my thought would be that if a Senator is up for election in the next cycle (or a special election), we should have the campaign link there in the infobox. But for a campaign that's over (like this one), no. BBQboffin (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Per above discussion change is not uncontroversial. Marking answered. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Does not respond to email contact via his congressional web page

It is important information to know that Senator JD Vance does not respond to his own constituents' email via his congressional web page and his congressional website appears to be unmonitored, which would lead one to believe that he is not interested in his own state's views, beliefs or positions, which would make it difficult for him to actually uphold his oath as a senator, not to mention earn his taxpayer-funded paychecks. I have written to him time and time and time again. Might as well be hollering into a Holler. Deb Genetin Dgenetin (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply Dgenetin (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

To add information to the article about his office's responsiveness (or lack) to public comment, we'd need a reliable source saying that per WP:RS. No disrespect meant, but original research such as your own experience can't be used in Wikipedia articles per our WP:OR policy. BBQboffin (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I thought I was a reliable source! Dgenetin (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editor is a reliable source, Dgenetin. In short, Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok Ok please delete my attempt to add information about Senator Vance, whom I have tried to contact via his congressional website many times and never received any response or even acknowledgment that my email was received. So So Sorry!! Dgenetin (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no way this is NPOV

Also in 2019, the first issue of The Lamp, which has since been called "a Catholic version of The New Yorker", included an essay by Vance describing the reasons for his conversion to Roman Catholicism.

Could we get rid of the included sentence, please? Besides, for me, as a non-American, this sentence is beyond comprehensible. I have no idea, what “The New Yorker” stands for in this sentence.

Ceplm (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

if "The New Yorker" was hyperlinked, would that help your understanding? 31.94.6.135 (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Could we perhaps be forthright and add that the source for that unlikely description comes from "the official newspaper of the Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis"? Even the National Review politely calls The Lamp "eccentric." Johannes der Taucher (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

On July 15th he was nominated to be the Vice Presidential Candidate for the United States of America 71.3.76.200 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

He is the new nominee for Trumps VP

RNC announcement 24.97.154.2 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Already done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Vice President 2024 Elections.

JD Vance is the Vice President Pick for Donald Trump in the 2024 elections. The Ohio Senator. 154.160.22.175 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Already done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (2)

change "to be apart of a presidential ticket" to "to be part of a presidential ticket" 73.97.101.228 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 I fixed this a few seconds ago. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (2)

Change Criticism of Women in the workplace to Supports Motherhood.

This section is currently a biased misrepresentation. 2600:6C83:740:2D:C22:488A:85D2:2840 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Already removed. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"He was announced"?

the principal text states: "j.d. vance was announced" as vp pick at rnc convention. Look, the roll call vote of the delegates will confirm him as vp nominee in a matter of minutes. I canoot edit the article, but let's write on the present: he is the vp pick 189.71.124.204 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Senate election

the fact that Vance underperformed the republican ticket during the 2022 election (compare 2022 United States Senate election in Ohio lead) should be mentioned in this article. — jonas (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can an administer set this page to semi-protected/protected?

It hasn't even been an hour since J.D. Vince has been announced there VP choice for Trump and this page is already being subject to vandalism and misinformation/disinformation. I can only guarantee that this page will get vandalized more as we head closer to the election. CavDan24 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already semi-protected the article. There is currently a request to upgrade the protection to ECP at WP:RFPP. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! CavDan24 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Eastern Kentucky roots

Vance's family was from the hills of Eastern Kentucky. He also spent summers visiting relatives with his grandparents in Jackson, Kentucky. His family also has ties with the Hatfield's and McCoy's. I feel like this should be mentioned in the article.  Kentuckian |💬   23:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Opening sentence

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but why has Vance's title in the opening sentence been reduced to "politican and lawyer"? It formerly referenced his status as a venture capitalist and author, which provides extensive detail on his background. Donald Trump's page notes him for various aspects of his career, for instance. While I think that venture capitalist is just one part of his career, "author" is what he became mostly known for and I feel that it deserves to be in the opening sentence. Again, I don't want to reinvent the wheel if this has already been discussed, but I would argue for returning "author" or "memoirist" to the first lead paragraph. PickleG13 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree @PickleG13. Mainstream reports describe him as author, venture capitalist and Vice-Presidential candidate, which would swap out for politician. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Wondering if he has contributed to causes in the rust belt where he grew up 🔝 69.126.93.15 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes.

He started "Our Ohio Renewal", a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization that focused on education, addiction and other "social ills" in his native areas. NPR link here:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/15/nx-s1-5040236/jd-vance-vice-president-trump-rnc

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:6970:174:4892:A5F5 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Good points: I have added this citation now.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance

JD Vance can NOT be a retired US Marine when he only served 4 years. Please correct Wikipedia srticle. 2603:9001:5DF0:1A0:5C3C:33DB:6968:1F0B (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

Last week, Vance in an interview with "Meet the Press" said that he supports the abortion pill mifepristone "being accessible" after the Supreme Court ruled against pro-life advocates who sued to end its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Source: msn.com July 15,2024 7:30 pm 2601:40A:8100:4BD0:D98E:C7AF:1BD8:A260 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done "In July, one week before Vance was announced as Trump's running mate, Vance told NBC's Meet the Press that he likewise supported access to mifepristone.[106]" is already in the article Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 15:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Summa cum laude???

The article claims, "Vance later attended the Ohio State University, graduating in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude in political science and philosophy." This sentence has two references. Neither of the references says anything about him graduating summa cum laude. I believe this "summa cum laude" claim should be removed from the article, unless and until someone finds actual sourcing of this claim to Ohio State. MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This New York Times article published today verified that claim. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That should settle it, but... I do wonder if the Times reporter got that information from reading Wikipedia! I can't find anything at Ohio State University websites that mentions any honors at graduation for him. This, for example, doesn't mention summa cum laude. You'd think they would call attention to it. Not being an alum myself, I can't consult their alumni directory. Well, I still have my doubts, but I guess I will replace the two worthless references with the Times article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@MelanieN Yeah that'd be wild. Alexysun (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This OSU 2009 commencement bulletin (page 30) confirms that Hamel (Vance's surname at the time) did indeed graduate Summa Cum Laude. I haven't added this as a reference to the article, because I think the NYT article is sufficient, but in case anyone wanted additional confirmation, or if you think it should be a reference, I'll leave it here. Mik Kanrokitoff (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. A difficult search since he was then using a different surname! But that confirms that he did indeed graduate Summa and we can leave it in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Lawyer Or Not?

Dear Wikipedia editors: The first sentence of this article states that JD Vance is a lawyer. I understand he has a Juris Doctor from Yale, but in what state does he hold a law license? If he does not hold a law license (which requires passing a state’s bar exam) then he is not a lawyer. If he is a lawyer, then my apologies. 2600:1008:B0A2:441A:1D80:FBF3:F188:DF15 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In the early career section, the article states that he worked as an attorney. RudolfRed (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re right. My mistake. Thanks! 2600:1008:B0A2:441A:1D80:FBF3:F188:DF15 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Senate election

the fact that Vance underperformed the republican ticket during the 2022 election (compare 2022 United States Senate election in Ohio lead) should be mentioned in this article. — jonas (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can an administer set this page to semi-protected/protected?

It hasn't even been an hour since J.D. Vince has been announced there VP choice for Trump and this page is already being subject to vandalism and misinformation/disinformation. I can only guarantee that this page will get vandalized more as we head closer to the election. CavDan24 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already semi-protected the article. There is currently a request to upgrade the protection to ECP at WP:RFPP. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! CavDan24 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Eastern Kentucky roots

Vance's family was from the hills of Eastern Kentucky. He also spent summers visiting relatives with his grandparents in Jackson, Kentucky. His family also has ties with the Hatfield's and McCoy's. I feel like this should be mentioned in the article.  Kentuckian |💬   23:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Opening sentence

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but why has Vance's title in the opening sentence been reduced to "politican and lawyer"? It formerly referenced his status as a venture capitalist and author, which provides extensive detail on his background. Donald Trump's page notes him for various aspects of his career, for instance. While I think that venture capitalist is just one part of his career, "author" is what he became mostly known for and I feel that it deserves to be in the opening sentence. Again, I don't want to reinvent the wheel if this has already been discussed, but I would argue for returning "author" or "memoirist" to the first lead paragraph. PickleG13 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree @PickleG13. Mainstream reports describe him as author, venture capitalist and Vice-Presidential candidate, which would swap out for politician. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Wondering if he has contributed to causes in the rust belt where he grew up 🔝 69.126.93.15 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes.

He started "Our Ohio Renewal", a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization that focused on education, addiction and other "social ills" in his native areas. NPR link here:

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/15/nx-s1-5040236/jd-vance-vice-president-trump-rnc

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:6970:174:4892:A5F5 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Good points: I have added this citation now.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance

JD Vance can NOT be a retired US Marine when he only served 4 years. Please correct Wikipedia srticle. 2603:9001:5DF0:1A0:5C3C:33DB:6968:1F0B (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

Last week, Vance in an interview with "Meet the Press" said that he supports the abortion pill mifepristone "being accessible" after the Supreme Court ruled against pro-life advocates who sued to end its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Source: msn.com July 15,2024 7:30 pm 2601:40A:8100:4BD0:D98E:C7AF:1BD8:A260 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done "In July, one week before Vance was announced as Trump's running mate, Vance told NBC's Meet the Press that he likewise supported access to mifepristone.[106]" is already in the article Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 15:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Summa cum laude???

The article claims, "Vance later attended the Ohio State University, graduating in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude in political science and philosophy." This sentence has two references. Neither of the references says anything about him graduating summa cum laude. I believe this "summa cum laude" claim should be removed from the article, unless and until someone finds actual sourcing of this claim to Ohio State. MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This New York Times article published today verified that claim. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That should settle it, but... I do wonder if the Times reporter got that information from reading Wikipedia! I can't find anything at Ohio State University websites that mentions any honors at graduation for him. This, for example, doesn't mention summa cum laude. You'd think they would call attention to it. Not being an alum myself, I can't consult their alumni directory. Well, I still have my doubts, but I guess I will replace the two worthless references with the Times article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@MelanieN Yeah that'd be wild. Alexysun (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This OSU 2009 commencement bulletin (page 30) confirms that Hamel (Vance's surname at the time) did indeed graduate Summa Cum Laude. I haven't added this as a reference to the article, because I think the NYT article is sufficient, but in case anyone wanted additional confirmation, or if you think it should be a reference, I'll leave it here. Mik Kanrokitoff (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. A difficult search since he was then using a different surname! But that confirms that he did indeed graduate Summa and we can leave it in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Lawyer Or Not?

Dear Wikipedia editors: The first sentence of this article states that JD Vance is a lawyer. I understand he has a Juris Doctor from Yale, but in what state does he hold a law license? If he does not hold a law license (which requires passing a state’s bar exam) then he is not a lawyer. If he is a lawyer, then my apologies. 2600:1008:B0A2:441A:1D80:FBF3:F188:DF15 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In the early career section, the article states that he worked as an attorney. RudolfRed (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re right. My mistake. Thanks! 2600:1008:B0A2:441A:1D80:FBF3:F188:DF15 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes to his positions on abortion and same-sex marriage in the lead

This:

During his time in the Senate, Vance has been described as a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist. He has cited Curtis Yarvin, Rod Dreher, and Patrick Deneen as primary influences. On social issues, he is considered to be strongly social conservative, opposing abortion, same-sex marriage, favoring a ban on pornography, and transgender healthcare and surgery on minors. Vance is considered a maverick from Republican economic orthodoxy, including on taxes, minimum wage, unionization, tariffs, and antitrust policy, and has opposed continued American military aid to Ukraine.

Was recently changed to:

During his time in the Senate, Vance has been described as a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist. He has cited Curtis Yarvin, Rod Dreher, and Patrick Deneen as primary influences on his political and religious views. On social issues, he is considered to be strongly socially conservative. He said he could support a 15-week abortion ban with exceptions the case of rape, incest, or threats to the health of the mother, and recently stated his position that abortion legislation should be left to the states. He personally opposes same-sex marriage, though he has said he does not want to reopen the debate. He is in favor of banning pornography. He is also opposed to transgender healthcare and surgery on minors. Vance is considered a maverick differing from Republican economic orthodoxy, including on taxes, minimum wage, unionization, tariffs, and antitrust policy, and has opposed continued American military aid to Ukraine.

Both of these changes are inappropriate. Vance has consistently opposed any recognition of same-sex marriage or any funding of it while as a Senator. Notably being one of the leading Senators against the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022. (In which he voted no.) The first version is far more concise, lacks of the fluff of the latter edit, and doesn't claim a moderation or left-wing shift on social issues that is debatable... at best. The wording comes across as WP: PEACOCK and WP: FLUFF to me. He's clearly still a strong social conservative, has consistently had one of the most socially conservative voting records in the Senate, and the extent in which he "opposes federal regulation of abortion" is dubious at best. I've been a consistent strong opponent (vs. other editors) in not calling him a monarchist, alt-right activist, or far-right, but we shouldn't claim he's suddenly seeking to "not reopen the debate" on same-sex marriage or abortion based off of a PR-minded interview. KlayCax (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

“Neoreactionary allegations”

No strong opinions on this either way but an “allegation” is the assertion that a person has done something wrong.

Neoreactionaries take their beliefs to be true/good, and it’s not our place on Wikipedia to say one way or another if they’re correct or not.

Should we just leave it more neutral as something like “Ideology” or whatever it was before? KronosAlight (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

People are also completely misunderstanding what the neoreactionary movement is. Vance has explicitly cited The Dark Enlightenment and neoreactionary thought as one of his major influences. Repeatedly.

Per Politico:

Among his other current intellectual influences, Vance has cited the conservative localist Rod Dreher, the reactionary blogger Curtis Yarvin and the “postliberal” Catholic philosopher Patrick Deneen.

The rewritten sentence also claims that he's been identified as a member of the "alt-right" which isn't found in any of the sources. KlayCax (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Current wording of the section is WP:SYNTH. The 2013 TechCrunch article makes no mention of Vance, and the articles about Vance make no mention of Sailer. NotBartEhrman (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Naming

I thought that only toy characters, and film chararcters can be named in shortened form on an encyclopedia, like G.I.Joe, G.I.Jane. Is not it a requirement here to show a first name+surname (middle name is optional like everywhere) ? If anyone (famous people) would start to modify his/her own wikipedia page to the former children nickname or how their mate/family member call them, or to the used sign at kindergarten, the whole wikipedia would be totally chaotic in a minute. 82.131.147.209 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The subject is a published author, using that name.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

For the first now he is a politician, not a fictional character, toy character, so should be used full name not just initials. And there is a plenty of people with Vance surname, initials adds almost nothing for a quick identifications between the same/similar people. 82.131.147.209 (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The usual guidance is WP:COMMONNAME. See J. K. Rowling, O. J. Simpson, P. J. O'Rourke, and many others. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that's the way forward @Andrew Davidson, thank you.

By the principle in that guidance essay, the person known as J. D. Vance should be referred to as such throughout, rather than using one surname in one section, another surname a paragraph later.

For example, it makes sense that, in the section about his service as a Marine, for the language to be something like, "During this period Vance was still known by his mother's maiden name, and his service record refers to him as Corporal Hamel."

Your thoughts?

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (4)

Add the height of the candidate (which is being debated on Reddit and was just recently edited on IMDB). He is not 5'7, but 6'2. This checks out with pictures next to others (ex. Trump who is >6ft tall)

Also see this cittaion https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8577419/ ConsensusJen (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see his height listed in the article and WP:IMDB is not a reliable source – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Cathedral and the Bazaar" link

"The Dark Enlightenment and neoreactionary thought" currently links to the article on Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" in the bit about Curtis Yarvin's thought. While there's probably some amount overlap between the politics of Vance, Raymond, and Yarvin, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is an essay on software development from 1997 and doesn't really have anything to do with Yarvin's idea of "the Cathedral". This would probably be better off linking to a description of Yarvin's beliefs (or just left unlinked). Brennen (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's an article by Yarvin where he references Raymond by name. here. Yarvin's notion of the cathedral is directly influenced by Raymond's work. Tdmurlock (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Link is incorrect.

The first link to Rod Dreher's page is correct, but the second link (in "Political positions") incorrectly goes to Curtis Yarvin's page. 2600:100A:B1CE:D17D:4D64:F7E:8749:58F0 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Mamaw and Papaw

Why is the nicknames he used as a child for his grandparents in any way notable and encyclopedic? Having endearing names for close family members is so common in the US as to compare with a statement that a person learned to tie their shoes as a child. -- 71.223.46.218 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of his memoir (and film) Hillbilly Elegy. They are central characters there. This is what catapulted him into politics.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:6970:174:4892:A5F5 (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. KronosAlight (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Large block quotes

Can we please stop inserting large block quotes such as these? As an encyclopedia, it is a good practice to summarize sources. Repeating them verbatim has several disadvantages, which I talk about a bit more in User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Problems with quotes#Problems with quotes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind seeing a few quotes of things the subject has said, especially as he is described as an author, seems relevant. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think on articles about living persons and especially politicians, we actually should rely a bit more on what they’ve actually said (i.e. primary sources) over what others have interpreted them to mean (i.e. secondary sources).

A lot of right-leaning sources have been prohibited on this website for various (often very valid) reasons, but the outcome is that by relying on secondary sources it presents a potentially biased interpretation of what was actually said.

Actually in an earlier version of this article, someone had (at some point) only partially quoted Vance’s claim about the relationship between slavery and abortion. If I recall correctly, the only bit quoted was about "There's something comparable between abortion and slavery” and ended it there. I’ve obviously since completed the quote until the end of his sentence in order to accurately represent his actual claim ("There's something comparable between abortion and slavery and that while the people who obviously suffer the most are those subjected to it, I think it has this morally distorting effect on the entire society.”) but I’m just highlighting that as an example of where this tendency towards secondary can sometimes produce biased or inaccurate outcomes here. KronosAlight (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree @KronosAlight. Primary sources can intelligently be used, so long as that source is clear, not requiring extensive knowledge of the subject. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed in recent edits by someone. This looks much better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, some good material there. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Question about characterization of J.D. Vance's political character.

Is the following statement an opinion of its author or, it is a citation from external sources: "During his time in the Senate, Vance has been described as a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist." This sentence has no sources, reliable or not; just a plain statement. Shouldn't such statements amounting to a general characterization of J.D. Vance as political persona be taken from reliable sources and not be just an apparent presentation of an assessment by the author in Wikipedia without any explanation of why this characterization is a correct one? Aren't Wikipedia authors supposed to be just neutral reporters about facts that can be found in reliable sources? Therefore, shouldn't the part "Vance has been described" have prepended by few citations from few independent from each other sources? 70.31.233.169 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead of an article doesn't necessarily require citations if they're provided in the body of the article. In this case, those statements are cited in the #Political positions section – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section summarizes the body of the article, and it is not necessary to include references for things that are properly referenced in the body. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point and agreed. As long as the claims are the same in the lead and in the relevant section, and the latter has the appropriate sources, it’s fine. KronosAlight (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please be reminded that this is a WP:BLP article, with much higher standards for WP:RS & WP:verifiability, and therefore, it's preferable to start adding references in the LEAD to avoid arguments and misunderstandings. 04:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, please add ref names to the references, so that references are not duplicated. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Notable Social issues for Lead mention

As per WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT, the lead summarizes and includes the most notable aspects. Therefore, the same needs to followed for Social issues. Older version: On social issues, he has promoted strongly conservative policies, opposing abortion and same-sex marriage and favoring bans on pornography and transgender healthcare for minors.

Since "pornography ban" does not seem to be a notable social issue currently highlighted by Vance as per most recent WP:RS sources, it should not be mentioned in the lead. RogerYg (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would it need to be currently highlighted by Vance? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:LEAD paragraphs are summarized version of the most important and notable, and Due weight content.

Also, we must be reminded that this is a WP:BLP article, and contentious claims about living persons have higher level of WP:RS and WP:NPOV consideration.

I agree you that probably it does not need to be currently highlighted by Vance, if recent high quality WP:RS sources are highlighting it. If you have such sources, please include the relevant references, even in the lead, and include pornography ban in some context or timeline, instead of mixing it with other high prominance issues. I have no intention of edit warring, just to keep the article per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and try to build consensus per WP:TALK, as you may see, I have much more entries on TALK page than in the article. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at recent sources they don't generally seem to mention anything about pornography, but they do seem to mention immigration policies. How about we replace porn with that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yes please replace porn with immigration policies as per the recent sources. RogerYg (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Fork out "Political positions"

This article has grown considerably in the last few weeks. I think we should consider forking the "Political positions" section out to Political positions of J. D. Vance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thats probably a good idea, the page is ballooning rapidly (doubled in size since the VP announcement). Some of the views might also be better covered in detail at Hillbilly Elegy which is still rather short. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Horse Eye's Back (talk) and Another Believer _(Talk) to fork out a new Wiki page " Political positions of J. D. Vance.", but please fork after the Name "J.D. Vance" is fixed in this Wiki page title., and we can have the exact same name in the forked article. RogerYg (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

East Palestine train derailment section is an embarrassment

The focus of the entire episode seems to be that "Vance was criticized, but…" The "criticism" is a couple tweets by extreme partisans—one who appears to have a bee in his bonnet about Vance—referenced in a single Newsweek article. The vast, vast majority of coverage suggests that Vance did a terrific job of handling the episode, and that his response has been enormously popular with the local population. Our section smacks of the worst sort of WP:POV and is a significant WP:BLP violation as it stands. Anyone up for editing it honestly and in comportment with WP:DUE. WP:NPOV, etc.? Thanks in advance! Ekpyros (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It deserves, at most, one sentence. Happy to help edit unless there are people ready to make a strong argument otherwise. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (3)

Footnote 7 attributes a quote in New Statesman to Vance; if you read the New Statesman article in question, it quickly becomes clear that the quote wasn't said by Vance, it was said by Dreher. 2A02:C7C:5CBB:F800:44B6:43CF:BC50:726F (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Does this issue still exist? This article has understandably gone under a lot of revisions since this request. If so can you be a little more specific, the citation numbers are dynamic. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done – with a search through the page history I found the passage. It did still exist and I have now removed it. Tollens (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

Under Advocacy, the sentence: Jamil Jivani, a friend from Vance's Yale days, was tasked with helping run the organization and later said the group's work was derailed because of Vance's cancer diagnosis.[39].

It wasn't Vance's cancer diagnosis, but Jivani's.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240717082212/https://jamiljivani.substack.com/p/how-cancer-changed-my-life Zorgothus (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 (2)

Under the section “Advocacy” it states Vance’s cancer diagnosis. Wasn’t it Jamil Jivani and not J.D. Vance who was diagnosed with cancer. It’s misstated and should be corrected. 2600:8802:5510:E500:B927:4D19:6F21:89F0 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Dark Enlightenment influence from the article

Editors keep deleting any mention of his "reactionary" beliefs and ties to the "Dark Enlightenment". Despite the fact that he's openly self-identified as such. This sentence:

and has embraced aspects of the Dark Enlightenment, a movement that sees mass participatory democracy, particularly liberal democracy, as a threat to or incompatible with freedom.

Is a short summary about his belief and is an obvious thing that we should add into the article. He has repeatedly stated that its ideas are important to his politics and has been repeatedly identified as a "reactionary" by self-identification and a "neoreactionary" by dozens of reliable sources. This shouldn't be up to dispute. It's central to his politics and has been overwhelmingly covered.

What exactly is being disputed here? KlayCax (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As Unherd notes:

Vance has described himself as a “reactionary” at war with the “regime.” He drops casual references to his personal friend Curtis Yarvin, and he’s fond of delivering thunderous pronouncements like “the universities are the enemy” (the title of a 2021 speech) and “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat” (his 2021 advice on a podcast to a future President Trump). On X, where he is a prolific and at times pugilistic poster, Vance follows a host of edgy right-wing accounts, from the race-realist blogger Steve Sailer to the infamous anarcho-fascist Bronze Age Pervert. He doesn’t eat seed oils. And he has voiced support for some of the passing enthusiasms of the “based” internet crowd, such as banning internet pornography.

It's absolutely insane to say that this is not notable when Politico, Unherd, Wall Street Journal, and many more sources have all uniformly cited all of this stuff. It's central to his appeal.

This isn't a claim by critics as people are suggesting. He's been saying this stuff on podcasts for years! KlayCax (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

On your own profile page you register your bias as a paid-up Member of the Democratic Party. KronosAlight (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as a disclaimer, @KronosAlight:. I have no idea what you mean by "paid-up member of the Democratic Party" as I'm not campaigning, work for, or given money to the party in 2024. KlayCax (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is just ignorance of American politics but payment is not required for party registration, most people actually register for a political party at their state Department of Motor Vehicles when getting a driver's license. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources supporting your view that he endorses such positions? KronosAlight (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The dozens of sources within the article. He self-describes as a neoreactionary, postliberal, and as being influenced by The Dark Enlightenment. What's exactly being disputed here, @KronosAlight:? He's explicitly stated all of this stuff dozens of time. It's covered in The Wall Street Journal, The American Conservative, Politico, Slate, Vice, Vox, and many other sources. I'm confused about what's even being disputed here. KlayCax (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to note that the current wording of the Neoreaction section, as of the time I'm posting this comment, is much better than how it looked two days ago. Can't go through the edit history but thank you to editors involved. NotBartEhrman (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

College attended

Reference to where he graduated from college should be changed from "Ohio State University" to "The Ohio State University". 165.156.39.14 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This would be a non-standard addition to only Vance's article as opposed to all other alumni of OSU on Wikipedia. Would require a broader consensus to get this changed on everyone's page, not just J.D. Vance. AveryTheComrade (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Please see

• WP:UNITHE

Wozal (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Combat Veteran

This entry says Vance is a combat veteran. If you are a Marine and you have experienced combat, you are awarded a Combat Action Ribbon. Doesn't appear that Vance has one. Therefore, he is not a combat veteran. Fix his Wikipedia entry. 2600:8800:4706:C00:3981:139:CB10:142C (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You only receive a CAR under certain conditions, usually you must return fire in a firefight. It is a personal award, and not necessarily the only indicator of a combat veteran. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

close but wrong We were there got indirect fire and didn't rate a CAR but I can assure you, we are combat Marines. S/F 47.132.192.172 (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Private "Facebook" messages violate WP:BLP

I think this is a biographical article and we need to be careful about WP:BLP, especially on content that is based on private messages, that are largely unproved, and reported by secondary or tertiary sources. One such content is : In a private message on Facebook he described Trump as "a cynical asshole like Nixon" and "America's Hitler".

There are no primary sources that verify these claims, though it has been reported in some secondary sources.

I think it violates the standards for WP:BLP : This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced, especially if potentially libellous, should be removed. RogerYg (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Even the latest NY Times biographical article on JD Vance (July 15, 2024) does not mention private message, and Wikipedia must follow WP:BLP standards not applicable to tabloids and magazines, which report unverified private messages.

''Criticism of Trump'': During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Vance sharply criticized Mr. Trump, describing him as “cultural heroin” and as a demagogue who was “leading the white working class to a very dark place.” He described himself as “a Never Trump guy.” In a Twitter post that he has since deleted, he called Mr. Trump “reprehensible” because he “makes people I care about afraid. Immigrants, Muslims, etc.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/us/politics/who-is-jd-vance-trump-vp.html

RogerYg (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. KronosAlight (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

J.D. Vance once compared Trump to Hitler. Now they are running mates from Reuters. Primary sourcing is not only not necessary, it is less desirable than secondary sources. In no way does the "America's Hitler" comment violate BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Pointers to the official policy preferring secondary sources:

WP:SCHOLARSHIP Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.

WP:RSPRIMARY Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Arcturus95 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, agreed. KronosAlight (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That has multiple sources. Not sure why it would be called "contentious" or "poorly sourced".

We can add even more additional sources (including the one mentioned by @Muboshgu above) if you like. Arcturus95 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources all supporting the original content.

1. [3] Trump names JD Vance, once one of his fiercest critics, as 2024 running mate

2. [4] ‘America’s Hitler’: All the Times J.D. Vance Trashed Trump

3. [5] In first interview as VP candidate, JD Vance explains why he called Trump 'America's Hitler' Arcturus95 (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In the USA today article, JD Vance never acknowledged saying "America's Hitler", rather it's a broad statement about being skeptical of Trump. The article title seems mischievous, and USA Today is not a reliable WP:RS source

Vance told Fox News he was initially wary of Trump in 2016.

Monday, the Ohio senator said he has changed his mind.

{USA today comment on Private message}

"I don't hide from that. I was certainly skeptical of Donald Trump in 2016, but President Trump was a great president and he changed my mind. I think he changed the minds of a lot of Americans," Vance told Fox's Sean Hannity in a friendly interview.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/15/jd-vance-past-trump-criticisms-abortion-shooting/74418450007/

RogerYg (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP articles have a higher standard of Wikipedia:Verifiability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

" four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material. The four types are":

direct quotations,

material whose verifiability has been challenged,

material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and

contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced. RogerYg (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

But the material is not unsourced nor is it poorly sourced. In fact we have plenty of reliable sources. Arcturus95 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

1. You are ignoring the other sources that back up those comments.

2. Where does it say USA Today is not a reliable source? It is reliable per WP:USATODAY.

3. Also, the USA Today article clearly says he made those comments. The third paragraph of the article is:

"I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler," Vance wrote in a 2016 message to a friend.

Arcturus95 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Previously, several hundered Wiki editors have largely agreed that content whoose source is private Facebook messages, as is the case ( "American Hitler", which was allegedly sent in a private Facebook message by JD Vance), are generally not reliable. Please see the discussion:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

"American Hitler" is a claim based on a private Facebook message as reported in some sources, but has not yet been acknowledged by JD Vance.

This is a claim by USA today in this artilce: "I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler," Vance wrote in a 2016 message to a friend.

If in some interview, Vance is directly quoted as acknowledhing it, then we may discuss to include it, if there is a consensus. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If in some interview, Vance is directly quoted as acknowledhing it, then we may discuss to include it, if there is a consensus.

That is not how sourcing works. The subject of the article does not have to acknowledge it. Reliable sources have to include it. Arcturus95 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Let us wait for more inputs from other editors, since this topic is not so simple, and it does relate to WP:BLP & Wikipedia:Verifiability issues.

Previously, multiple editors discussed it for several weeks as below to gain consensus, which was against Facebook message content.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Thanks for your patience, as we need more input from other editors on this issue. RogerYg (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding that RFC. We cannot use Facebook as a source. However, statements from Facebook comments, messages, posts, etc can be included if they are sourced from reliable sources. Arcturus95 (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources document the "America's Hitler" comment, therefore it is reliably sourced. That's all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Despite dozens (hundreds?) of headlines, Vance did not refer to Trump as "America's Hitler". He expressed an apprehension that it might turn out that way. Wikipedia has it right by simply quoting the entire sentence. Yitz711 (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

yes, I agree that quoting the entire sentence is important, as it was an apprehension rather than a description. RogerYg (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

False info

Someone put Jd vance “opposes free market capitalism” it should say supports. Shanethebrain63737 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Clean up

Hey all. The last paragraph of the intro has no references. Can we please site some sources? It says he opposes free market capitalism. “Vance has been called a neoreactionary, national conservative, and a right-wing populist. He has cited Curtis Yarvin, Rod Dreher, and Patrick Deneen as influences on his ideological views and describes himself as a member of the postliberalright. On social issues, he has promoted strongly conservative policies, opposing abortion and same-sex marriage and favoring a ban on transgender healthcare for minors. Vance opposes free-market capitalism and differs from mainstream Republican views on taxes, the minimum wage, unionization, tariffs, and antitrustpolicy, while opposing American military aid to Ukraine.”

can we site sources on this? Tentemp (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Because leads are meant to serve as a summary of the article as a whole, leads are not required to have sources since those would be mentioned later on. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Wozal (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s very hard to believe that he opposes free market capitalism when he is a venture capitalist. Let’s site a source on that claim or remove that text. Tentemp (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Tentemp (talk) that any controversial statement without reference, even in lead needs to be removed as per WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability. 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires references for any contentious content, even if it is in the lead. We need sources in lead, else any Uncited content is good for deletion per WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability. RogerYg (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Intro - No evidence that "Vance opposes free-market capitalism"

I've been unable to find any evidence supporting the contention that Vance rejects free-market capitalism. Later in the article, it is again mentioned with a footnote (footnote 106 at the time of this post) to an opinion piece in The Spectator that (rather flaccidly) suggests that Vance's embrace of Catholicism means he rejects the Protestant (i.e. Reagan) view of economics. On a good day, this is tortured logic.

Whatever Vance's views - and they might differ from the GOP party platform - I cannot find any source in which he rejects free-market capitalism.

Both references to this should be stricken, or alternatively, properly supported with legitimate sources that actually substantiate the claim. Mojomusic72 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Good observation. Is the Spectator a reliable source? Their article reads like an opinion piece. Since Trump is a classic example of a capitalist, and that Vance has been chosen to run as his VP, this more than suggests that Vance is on the same page. I tagged the statement with a tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, how is Vance differ from Republicans on taxes. Maybe on corporate taxes? 2600:1702:1C10:2F00:643C:555B:B790:A384 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

LOL you people are out to lunch

"Could you get some money by raising taxes on the rich guy who complained to you about his workers?

Sure. I’m not philosophically against raising taxes on anybody."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/jd-vance-interview.html LOVECEL ^🎔 17:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/16/the-trump-vance-ticket-is-a-repudiation-of-free-market-conservatism-00168578 Lovecel (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

More protection

I think we are getting a lot of vandalism and should protect this article more Tentemp (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

you are the one who overrid the admin comment to not remove the part about him opposing free markets mate LOVECEL ^🎔 21:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that. No biting. Please site a source that quotes him saying he opposes the free market capitalism. 47.200.116.187 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I literally did, he deleted my citation but woe unto me if I revert

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/16/the-trump-vance-ticket-is-a-repudiation-of-free-market-conservatism-00168578 LOVECEL ^🎔 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That cite reads like an opinion piece; I'd think we'd want a more reliable source (and several for a BLP). BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's many more, let me know when I'm free to add it without an edit war or faux incredulousness.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/16/jd-vance-new-right-00168383

"he has championed a distinctive New Right legislative agenda, rejecting the The GOP’s traditional fusion of free-market fundamentalism"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/07/15/vance-trump-economy-gop/

"The Ohio senator leads a GOP faction sharply breaking with party ideology on free markets"

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/jd-vance-things-donald-trumps-pick-vice-president-111964194

"president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, called Vance a leading voice for the conservative movement, on key issues including a shift away from interventionist foreign policy, free market economics"

https://www.ft.com/content/ffbcb42d-476e-4104-939e-97c6b9fa85b3

"Donald Trump’s selection of JD Vance as his running mate cements the Republican party’s shift from the free-market conservatism of the Reagan and Bush eras to the economic populism of the Make America Great Again movement." LOVECEL ^🎔 04:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Are those opinions or a direct quote from Vance? Vance is a Venture Capitalist. He is an active participant in the free market. I read these articles and there is no direct quote from him stating he opposes free market capitalism. Bernie sanders and AOC are quoted saying they oppose free market capitalism. Not sure why you are so insistent that we put Vance opposes free market capitalism. Please act in good faith. Tentemp (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm swagging out in good faith firehousing sources my dude here come even more direct quotes hit me with with an emoticon when you're chill with them joining their buddies in the references section

"[someone trying to live the American dream] will confront society a culture and a market economy that is more hostile to people having children than maybe at any period in American history" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmVjKIEC8rw&t=499s 8:19

"The board of directors of U.S. Steel must reject any bid from a foreign acquirer. If the courts attempt to block them, then Congress should intervene. We must ensure that corporate transactions such as the sale of U.S. Steel advance our nation’s power and prosperity. If we do, we might rescue 600 Grant St. from becoming yet another rusty memorial of American decline." Explicitly saying that congress should prevent the free market outcome for US factories. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/05/jd-vance-america-auction-industrial-base/

"it's time to break Google up...The monopolistic control of information in our society resides with an explicitly progressive technology company." https://x.com/JDVance1/status/1761041871617278246 LOVECEL ^🎔 17:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s not him opposing free market capitalism nor is it a quote in a wiki worthy source. Warren Buffet is in favor of higher taxes and more regulation in some cases, does that mean he opposes free market capitalism? No. You are the only one trying to add this and multiple people are stating we should not include he opposes free market capitalism. You don’t have a consensus. It would look ridiculous to put that he is avenger capitalist that opposes capitalism in this article. His economic, tax and political stances are accurately described. In this article. He has some protection policies and obviously supports free market capitalism there’s no need to include that free market capitalism as it would show an inaccurate view of his economic policies. It would lead readers of this article to think that he supports socialism, or another source of economic modeling please end this discussion . Tentemp (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You tell me to engage in good faith but you reverted my edit which explicitly did not say free market capitalism. In fact I have never once tried to edit it to free market capitalism. Look at my history editing here mate. I never once wrote capitalism. Not a single time. You are tilting at windmills. Can you address what I actually wrote next time? Thanks! LOVECEL ^🎔 22:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not being included Tentemp (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"Vice President Vance" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vice President Vance has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Vice President Vance until a consensus is reached. Wozal (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Claim that he wants to ban pornography

The claim that he wants to ban pornography should be removed. I've searched for an hour, and I can find no direct quote from him saying anything even remotely close to wanting to ban pornography. The citation in this article leads eventually to this link

https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/the-political-path-forward-get-married-and-have-kids

In that article, the writer claims to have asked him about pornography and says:

"When I asked his thoughts on porn and birth control and their effects on familial decline, Vance admitted he wants to outright ban pornography."

After this, he basically says that the increased use of pornography and isolation have led people to not make personal connections and relationships in real life. He never says that pornography should be banned.

This isn't a quote from him, and I've searched for an hour and can find no quote from him at all that even remotely says this. In no interview can I find a quote that even gets close to saying he wants to ban pornography.

With out a direct quote on this, it seems unlikely that he told the interviewer this. If he did, why didn't the interviewer quote him?

For such a well-known person, this really needs stronger evidence that it's true to be mentioned here. 2603:8080:7400:E6C:81F9:3D90:F958:7B02 (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that claim that he wants to ban pornography should be removed if there are no strong WP:RS sources, and "this really needs stronger evidence that it's true to be mentioned here.". Also, as this is a WP:BLP article, so there are higher standards for WP:Verifiability.

Hi Horse Eye's Back (talk) - another reason not to include it in the lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Vance is recorded as saying he wants a ban on pornography. A strong and unusual view. Perhaps it's too much to have that statement depend on one source.

However, it's quite clear that he believes the state has a role in preventing adolescents from accessing pornography, and that it is damaging to what he calls the "public good" of marriage. He has written as much in a long opinion piece in the Catholic Journal First Things.

I don't think any of the material should be removed from the article; but perhaps moderated to language such as:

"Seeing the damaging effects of pornography, particularly on adolescents and, more broadly on the "social good" of marriage, Vance has indicated in his own writing that the government should play a role in seeing its access is limited."

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest stay close to the wording from that Catholic magazine that he "admitted he wants to" ban rather that he "supports" a ban. Politicians will often say that they personally may "want" some policy while realistically being aware that the policy is not politically viable and so wouldn't actually support legislation for it. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it comes across as P.R. for Vance. KlayCax (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That version you've quoted seems reasonable @Em3rgent0rdr. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I made an edit using the wording "admitted he wants to ban pornography". Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"full-ride" at Yale Law School is Misleading

Can we delete the "full-ride scholarship" part of his attending Yale Law School? This is misleading because Yale Law School does not offer merit scholarships, and the clear implication of "full-ride scholarship" is that Vance received a merit scholarship to Yale Law School. --Duckduckgoosegoose123 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I clarified that he received the "full-ride" scholarship for his first year at Yale per NYT source, post self-correction. BBQboffin^{grill me} 05:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"False claims" of election fraud are actually "Yet unproven" claims

When reporting the results of investigation(s) into allegations, a good reporter will always make a distinction between a reference to "false claims" versus a reference to a "current lack of identified evidence". Ergo, it is never wise to report that there is "no evidence" of the allegation(s). A "current lack of identified evidence" of an allegation is most accurately referred to as "no identified evidence". To say otherwise infers that nothing more can ever be learned about the allegation(s). 72.55.241.35 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

They are in fact false claims

- Klausklass (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

should be simply, "claims", and not "false claims". 2600:6C55:42F0:4DA0:CB52:AC2A:E112:46EF (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would we want to make our article less precise? The claims are false. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, they were unproven. No court took the cases that were litigated due to issues of standing, not proof. They've never been proven false, merely rejected. Mojomusic72 (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. As the sources in the article indicate, a number of cases were dismissed after the campaign (or third party) lawyers were judicially invited to submit evidence of their allegations and indicated they had no evidence they (the alleging counselors) deemed credible enough to present themselves. One of the myriad of reasons for the false allegations being taken to court, it was deemed, was in the performance of the strategic delay role.--LeyteWolfer (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Asserting the claims are false is showing of bias. Evidence is inconclusive either way. "Unfounded claims" would even be better than "false claims", although, I think even that would be inaccurate. "Claims" would be best. GramCanMineAway (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources say its inconclusive? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have found any reliable sources saying the evidence is inconclusive, please update this article (and related ones), as that would be new information. You can read the sources on those articles to understand why they are conclusively false claims. Klausklass (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)